McCain rekindles Iraq spat with Obama

Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2008 12:38 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Security

From NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy
This morning, McCain spoke at the James Baker Institute at Rice University and jumped back into his back-and-forth with Obama. After McCain criticized Obama for his statements at Tuesday's debate, Obama's comeback involved McCain's support for the war from the outset. And today McCain called that kind of thinking counterproductive to moving forward.

"So yesterday, Senator Obama said, 'Well we shouldn't have gone in in the first place, and if we hadn't gone in in the first place we wouldn't be facing this problem,'" the Arizona senator said. "Well, that's history. That's the past. That's talking about what happened before. What we should be talking about is what we're going to do now.

"And what we're going to do now is continue this strategy, which is succeeding in Iraq and we are carrying out the goals of the surge. The Iraqi military are taking over more and more responsibilities, the casualties are down, and we will be able to withdraw and come home. But we will come home with honor."

After leaving Rice, McCain traveled to an airport near Houston to receive the endorsement of former Secretary of State James Baker, and he succinctly reiterated his critiques of Obama's position.

"This is not about decisions that were made in the past," McCain said. "This is about decisions that a president will have to make about the future in Iraq."

Baker, also well-known for heading up the Iraq Study Group, voiced his agreement with McCain's view of the situation in Iraq.

"I think what Senator McCain's position is today is quite consistent with what we said in the Iraq Study Group Report," Baker said. "We negated the idea of setting a timetable, a withdrawal date...we also said and pointed out that we're going to have American forces in Iraq for a long time to come."

This last line may help sooth the ire of some independents who were upset by McCain's "100 years" in Iraq statement, and felt that more of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations should have been implemented.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Is this all McCain can talk about? Where does he stand of immigration, social security, education, torture (waterboarding?),health insurance? It appears that we should call him "Johnny One Note".The war is not going well except for those that are wearing rose-colored glasses, neither is his battle with Obama. Come on Johnny One Note, open up, tell us something that we have not heard from Limbaugh, Coulter,Hannutty, O'Reilly,etc. Say something profound and makes us think that your brain cells are operating better than they normally do.

A.Brocco, Albuquerque,NM (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:22 PM)

I can imagine a court case in which a young teenager is charged with stealing a car, joyriding and eventually wrapping that car around a tree.

Defense: "Your honor, this isn't about any poor decisions that may have been made in the past. Its about how all of us can work together to get this family the car it needs."

Judge: "Nice try. Six months, no parole."

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:25 PM)

To all you Democrats who said you will vote for McCain if Clinton or Obama wins: I hope you will be happy with McCain. He is just another George Bush. He'll say and do anything to be president. He's also in really tight with the lobbyists. Hope you democrats won't mind continuing to pay for the war in Iraq with money and our soldier's lives. Democrats really make me crazy! We need to vote out every republican we can, just for them sticking behind Bush and all the illegal things he's been doing.

New Independent (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:26 PM)

Past = best predictor of future anyone?

Nice to know we can not be responsible for decisions we've taken in the past, there's a few decisions of mine that have impacted stuff that I'd like to take back. Hopefully we've all learned from the experience.

While I agree we should be forward-thinking, I don't at all think the past is irrelevant. Heavens, what else would we find to talk about...

Lisa, New Britain, CT (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:27 PM)

McCain- "This is not about decisions that were made in the past," McCain said. "This is about decisions that a president will have to make about the future in Iraq."

LIFE is about decisions and events of the past. Intelligent people learn from them- apparently McCain can't be counted among these people.

Bottom line is, we'll have two liberal democrats to choose from in November- McCain or Obama. The lessor of two evils? Obama.

And to those that compain about Obama's terrific use of words and ideas- does he remind anyone else of another unexperienced Senator from 1960 who went on to win the presidency?

Dave, Dallas, TX (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:28 PM)

The Iraq surge is "working"??

If your leaky umbrella reduces the amount of rain hitting you by 30%, is it working? How much longer will you need to hold up that umbrella before you're completely dry?

Don, Baltimore, MD (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:56 PM)

It seems that in the coverage of Obama's response in the debate to the question posed by Mr Russert, and the subsequent dust-up with McCain going after Obama, as if Obama was unaware of the presence of al Qaeda... etc, that none of the coverage bothers to put Obama's reply in the context of the question that had been asked of him, which was

"MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we -- if this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it? ".

With Mr Obama's reply being played over and over, while not giving the actual question that was asked, it has distorted his stance on this issue and resulted in much ado about what in fact was a completely sensable comment.

Adam Reid (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:59 PM)

Estimates on our expenditures for the ongoing operations in Iraq range from $10 billion to $16 billion a month. And of course that doesn't count the human cost, but for simplicity let's discuss the financial side.

McCain is willing to stay for 100 more years.

Seems to me he's willing to pay up to an additional $12 trillion dollars for the sake of battlefield honor, and that's using the smallest estimate of what we're actually spending.

To put that number in perspective, that's more than our current entire national debt, accumulated since the country began. Looking at it another way, its over $33,000 per every American man, woman and child.

I wonder if even Jerry from CC is willing to pay that?

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:00 PM)

If we need 140000 troops to handle ALQUIDA in IRAQ, Can McCain tell us how many troops do we need to handle ALQUIDA in other countries?

sam, nj (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:03 PM)

My friend, why can't we talk about the past and the furture? And if we can't talk about the past then don't bother bringing up your experience as a reason to elect you becasue that was in the past.

In regards to Iraq my friend, lets talk about the future. How long is our military and economy at the mercy of Iraq's political and ethnic differences? Do we really need 140,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely to combat Al Queda in Iraq? Can you provide substantially evidence that if we start withdrawling troops, Iraq will plunge into complete chaos? Will Al Queda really take over Iraq..I need more convincing with real proof?

Fair questions that I haven't heard an answer to my friend.

Jeff, Portland, OR (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:05 PM)

Senator Obama has said 'we will be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting.' Senator McCain needs to say 'we should not have gone to Iraq, but we now have fix what we broke.'

Frankly, I thought I first heard that line from Senator Jim Webb from Virginia. I notice Barack uses it a lot in debates.

I think plagerism is a strong word, but Barack gets his sound bites from a variety of sources.

Mary M, Chicago, IL (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:07 PM)

S C R E W Y O U !!!!!
Rick,ky (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:19 PM)

---------------------------------------
Way too much Viagra! Take less, you are in the 4 hour danger zone!

HP Boston (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:07 PM)

IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT PAST MISTAKES,WHAT ABOUT ALL YOU FOOLS WITH THE APPEASEMENT MENTALITY THAT LED TO THE 3000 DEAD ON 9/11. WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING EXCUSES FOR THE WAR ON TERROR. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE LOST THOUSANDS MORE HERE IN THE US IF WE CONTINUE TO TURN THE OTHER CHEEK AFTER EVERY ATTACK WE SUFFER? WE NEED TO BE RESPECTED BY THE WORLD. OBAMA WOULD BE A JOKE

JERRY, ATLANTA.GA (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:08 PM)

McCain sez [["And what we're going to do now is continue this strategy, which is succeeding in Iraq and we are carrying out the goals of the surge.]]

Baloney. There is no "success" in Iraq. The country has been destroyed. There are still 2 million desperate refugees living in foreign countries and another 2 million displaced in Iraq by the ethnic cleansing, which _has_ succeeded in its own ugly way, explaining the temporary decrease of civilian deaths, which are now on the rise again.

Cholera due to drinking water contaminated with raw sewage is increasingly a problem in some cities, including Baghdad. There is nearly no medical care for the hundreds of thousands of sick and dying. There are about 3 hours of electricity per day in Baghdad.

As for what the war is doing to THIS country:

US troop deaths are down because 80,000 Sunni insurgents are being paid 300 per month not to attack Americans, for a grand total of 280 MILLION dollars per year, and yet American soldiers are STILL dying at a rate of one per day. If the pay offs to insurgents stop, the rate will certainly rise again.

The war is breaking not only the US military but the US economy, with the cost of the war an incredible 275 MILLION dollars per DAY. Much of the cost of the war is not being paid for with taxes, so it's a factor in the current economic stagflation, along with sub-prime mortgage rip-offs and other corporate crimes.

[[The Iraqi military are taking over more and more responsibilities, the casualties are down, and we will be able to withdraw and come home. But we will come home with honor."]]

After more than a half million civilian deaths, Pentagon-ordered torture at Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Blackwater murders of civilians, and all the similar atrocities, there is no honor left to save.

Houston (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:14 PM)

Tim Russert gave Obama a pass on the question while taking curtain calls for Clinton's response on her vote to support Bush on handling Iraq, (a vote Obama has been armchair quarterbacking).

Obama answered 2 hypthetical questions that led him back to giving an affirmative to Russert's question of whether he would go back into Iraq. This puts Obama at the same place Bush was when America was hysterical over biologically and chemically laced postal services and the threat of Iraq providing these plus nuclear devices to terrorist.

Clinton tried to opt out of answering hypotheicals and it is poor journalism to try to nail down politicians on hypotheicals, particularly on foreign policy because it gives people who have national interest of their own an idea of how a politician thinks and how they will react. The questions put candidates on slippery slope, forcing them to answer in some manner, when one or the other of them answers without conscience. This is where Clinton was. She is to be admired for her sacrifices with voters, in the nations interest, for some of her answers such as: Fiscal responsibility before beginning new spending, and Not agreeing to meet with leaders of countries whose aim is to destroy us (Venzuela) or destroy Israel (Iran).

I can only imagine the reaction of Obama meeting with Hamas or Hezbollah leadership and the (false or not) propaganda they would produce from such a meeting.

Obama is so naive on foreign policy it is dangerous and is unbelievable how the press has allowed him so much line without reeling him in on his foreign policy declarations. His responses of "old" Washington need to "change" and his method of refracting comments from his opponents is getting "old".

He needs a "new" way of being specific about what he means, The first time he says it.

K Barnes, Asheville,NC (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:16 PM)

John, Dallas [[I agree with both candidates. What we do going forward is what is important now, but to not understand why you drove the 'bus into the ditch' will only make it more likely that you will drive the bus into a ditch again in the future. ]]

The next ditch McCain wants to drive us into is Iran. He wasn't really joking when he was singing his merry little ditty: Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran. If the US military and economy are destroyed by the Iraq fiasco, another misadventure in Iran could do the trick.

Houston (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:16 PM)

So by McCain's logic, his past decisions should not be an issue to people who are about to be confronted with the choice of whether or not to support that his future decisions? Typical GOP logic.

“Just because my decisions royally screwed up the country doesn’t mean we should take those decisions into consideration, or even mention them, when discussing the issue.”

Rob, Buckeye, AZ (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:17 PM)

OP Taylor (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:21 PM)

John McCain still believes the U.S. mission and purpose in Iraq is a military exercise and that it has a military solution. In this he is his own astounding blunder, anxious to compound President Bush's.

Mike, Panhandle (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:21 PM)

There are some realities McCain should know, one Al Qeda did not exist in Iraq until after we invaded. The Shites hates Al Qeda and would have no problems going after them when we leave. There are plenty of Sunnies who hate Al Qeda and don;t forget the Kurds. So why dose he think Al qeda will run free in Iraq if the US pulls out. The Shite Militia, Sunnies, and Kurds have alot of scores to settle with Al Qeda. Then there is the ralley cry when the US leaves recruitment of forien fighters will become much harder since we the bad ole USA won't be there. Then McCain should not ride on Iraq remaing stabble it is not a stabble place. Oh by the way I like Mac.

kirt Silvers kansas City Mo (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:22 PM)

Anyone want to bet that we'll see a form of the "Daisy" commercial this season against McCain?

BL, Cincinnati OH (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:23 PM)

There was a president with even less experience at the national level than Kennedy or Obama: Abraham Lincoln. He didn't even make it to the Senate. He only had one 2-year term in the US House of Representatives. He was a silver-tongued devil who went on to be president despite his lack of experience. And we all know what a bad president he turned out to be.

Houston (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:25 PM)

As an Obama supporter, I believe that Senator McCain raises a valid point that we can not just cut and run. HOWEVER, his 'another 50 years' rhetoric is way off mark. Unlike Korea, Germany and Japan, NO ONE in Iraq wants us to stay except our 'puppets' in the government. In fact, no one in the Middle East wants us to stay and just being there is justification, in their own minds, for continuing to try and terrorize us. We were wrong to go in and we would be wrong to stay.

Senator Obama, despite what some commenters in this thread and the right wingnuts would have you believe, will not 'cut-n-run'. He, and Senator Clinton I might add, want to get out as soon as possible but both have said that it will take at least a year (NO ONE could get them out sooner, it's impossible logistically) and it would be done in such a manner as to ensure our troops and America's security.

Is the surge working? Only in the 'Whack-A-Mole' sense and even the military has indicated that the lower overall death count is due much more to the unilateral cease fire by the Medi(sp?) army rather than the surge.

Is the Iraqi government and army doing more? Yes, but I believe it is only because they see that the US will most probably have a Democratic President and know that we will be pulling out.

So, basically, no, the surge is not the reason that there is 'progress' in Iraq. There were no results when it first happened and then when it became obvious that we would be leaving next year, that's when progress started happening.

Matthew (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:25 PM)

HA-HA!

The straight talker served up his "best" slow-fast ball and Obama sent it somewhere over our horizon…Today McCain "fighting words" sounds like his tail been push deep inside of his chest and reality has set in about pulling our troops out of Iraq w/o waving a white flag, but during the "right thing" for humanity.

Welcome home President Obama!

Alpha_Male (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:27 PM)

I am sick to death of reading all the posts of people who profess to be lifelong democrats saying that if Obama is the nominee and not Hillary they will vote for McCain. Go I say, we don't need you! This is a nation where the majority rules and if the majority decides that Obama is the nominee so be it. If you are willing to betray the principles of the Democratic Party just because you didn't get what you wanted then you are really no different than anyone who puts their personal wants ahead of everybody elses. Alot of you say "he doesn't have the experience" and "we don't know what kind of president he'll be". Maybe you're right but I know exactly what kind of president McCain will be and it's the extreme opposite of what I want in the White House.

Greg, Catlett,VA (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:28 PM)

I am also a Democrat who will vote for McCain if Obama wins.

Iffymens (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:29 PM)

"This is not about decisions that were made in the past," McCain said. "This is about decisions that a president will have to make about the future in Iraq."

Wrong!

This is about electing a President who can make the right decision about going to war. You, John McCain didn't! Hillary didn't! Bush & Cheney didn't!!!

The problem with politicians is they never find Honor in admitting they were wrong!!

Tim, Peoria, IL (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:31 PM)

I am also a Democrat who will vote for McCain if Obama wins.

Iffymens (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:32 PM)

Moving Forward - McCain will keep us entrenched in the Middle East and continue to squander this country's resouces and reputation. I admire McCain, he is worthy of everyone's respect - but not everyone's vote. McCain is trying to make this about the war because that is all he's got, it's the only issue on which he can even start to make the argument that he's qualified...he's got nothing else.

By the way Write in Hillary, = vote for McCain - or for that matter, if Hillary gets the nomination a Vote for Obama = a vote for McCain... Obama and Clinton are nearly indistinguishable on the issues. Come ON people, be reasonable!

MKD (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:32 PM)

McCain is correct....history tells us that he and President Bush made a big mistake(biggest of their lives) by taking us back into Iraq. History can also show us trends in "thinking". McCane has shown poor judgement in foreign policy for some time now. If senator McCane is in the oval office we will have another war in Iran and probably look back at the Bush years as the "good old days". Bottom line is that McCane has a dangeros combination of a "hot temper", and a "cold war" view of foreign relations. I is time for this honorable ex-pow to retire and let the next generation move this country forward.

Ron (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:38 PM)

Dear "write in Hillary" in the ballot slot ... sweetie, Americans have written her off "longs" ago. Surely, you are not as delusional as to think we will drive our vote into the ditch. Me, voiceless, I think not. Voting is a privilege and I don't throw it away for candidate who is not the majority.

Monica Santos, LA, CA (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:45 PM)

It is a said day in America when a Veteran, War Hero, and Prisoner of War in a prison camp which conducted torture that Senator McCain endured for our freedom, actually has to prove himself to Voters. Senator McCain has two Sons who have served in Iraq. Of course going to war in Iraq was a mistake. Just like Senator Kerry said four years ago, you made the mistake now you have to clean it up. Senator McCain did not push the administation to go to War, having been through one I am sure he knew the consequences. He did push for the surge which is enabling people to walk the streets a little safer. If this War was a total success people would believe we should go to War to solve all our problems. McCain is not George Bush, he should have won in 2000 but too many people listen to Limbaugh and Hannity and Man Coulter.

Dan, Florida (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:50 PM)

Any Hillary voters that will "vote Republican" in the General Election out of spite are a detriment to our political process and at the same time kicking Senator Clinton in the stomach, the politician they supposedly support. Senator Obama is the closest match to Senator Clinton's policies, yet you'd vote for McCain because of what? McCain's lack of judgment? McCain's lack of an economic plan? McCain's nonexistent Health Care reform plan? Why on Earth would any Hillary supporter vote for John McCain unless you are a fool who never really supported what Hillary stands for in the first place?

Michael D. Hafer (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:50 PM)

McCain is out of touch with the American people. The guy's view of the world is simple out dated.

Jim , Oregon (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:50 PM)

Obama said if Al Qaeda had a base in Iraq he would have to take that into consideration? McCain said Al Qaeda is there, so does that mean Obama is not leaving Iraq? No, he didn’t say that because that might cost him a vote, instead he made a remark on the past, that’s politics. Time and time again, Obama has proved that he shouldn’t be our Commander in Chief, I don’t fill confident that he knows enough. After all, look what putting Democrats in charge of The House of Representatives did to protect us.

Lisa, Gilber, Arizona (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:51 PM)

May I point out YOU AMERICA made a choice DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS now you can debate whatever you want you can go back and debate if NEVILLE CHAMBERLIN let hitler feel as if he could attack Poland.Then Churchill could claim the NAZIS would never be in POLAND if it wasnt for chamberlin and we should just withdraw and let them be,that is what the OBAMA argument sounds like,the question what now ?IMMEDIATE WITHDRAW<PHASED WITHDRAW FIGHT HARDER AND SMARTER WITH SOME FRESH IDEAS , BECAUSE I DONT KNOW how we get out how we honor the men and women who sacrificed all ,dont we owe it to WIN.A STABLE IRAQ RUN BY IRAQIS BENI SADAR <CHALABLE WHO EVER BUT NOT SADAMM and not US

kenn (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:53 PM)

GEORGE BUSH CANT HOLD MACAINS JOCK STRAP NATIONAL GUARD IN ALABAMA WONT COMPARE TO BOMBING RUNS AND PRISONER OF WAR CAMPS

kenn (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:55 PM)

Is it fear mongering to want to protect ourselves against agression? Do people actually believe there is no threat to America? Agree with Iraq or not, think things could have been handeled better in Afganistan or not. We have an enemy, this enemy believes that their God will reward them for killing infidels. We are reffered to as the great satan. We have not been attacked on our soil since 911. The Iraqi people deserve a chance. To say no Iraqis want our help is folley. If we desert Iraq again (as Bush #1 did) all credibility will be lost. Their govt is making strides toward independence. The vast majority of fighters are not Iraqi. Even Al Sadyre has signed up for another 6 mos. If we as a country think that Iran will not fill a void left by America we deserve what ever happens. I believe that every American wants our soldiers home. We do not want them however to be forced to patrol our streets. The foreign fighters will not go home. They left their home to kill Americans. They will go where ever they have to to fulfill that goal. There is a lot to risk here. The American people will decide the question. I just pray that "hope" does not blind us of reality!

here or there (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:58 PM)

Does this mean that McCain thinks his vote to authorize the Iraq war was a mistake??? Well???

Denver, CO (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:00 PM)

How convenient for "straight talk" McCain. He acts as though he wasn't part and parcel of the disaster that is Iraq. He can talk about "the future" all he wants. But I question his judgment going forward since it was so bad in the past. Let me get this right: McCain joined Bush in creating the nightmare in Iraq and now he argues that based on his bad decisions, he is the man we should trust moving forward. I used to admire John McCain. Not any more.

Steve Nesich, Seattle, WA (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:11 PM)

McCain vs. Democrats
He says Al Qaeda In Iraq will establish bases in Iraq to train terrorists to attack America IF WE LEAVE.

We have trained over 350,000 Iraqi Security Forces to protect Iraq.

The latest estimates are that there are LESS THAN 2000 Al Qadea Terrorists in Iraq.

No Democrat has proposed grounding our eyes in the sky or our Navy Air Corp and Air Force.

When we remove our troops on the ground Al Qaeda will not be able to create a training facility for anything. We will blow it to bits before the first terrorist is trained.

McCain more than anyone should know the US Air Power Capability.

Jim Frego, Grants Pass, OR Capt. US Army (ret.) (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:18 PM)

Sen. McCain is a good man, an American hero, but he’s wrong on this conflict.

The decision to pursue this war of choice was wrong! It was wrong on the merits; it was a departure from our strategy to eliminate the Muslim extremists in Afghanistan.

Admitting the error does not dishonor our troops. The US military has done the best under an impossible situation. We should re-deploy our troops in order to force the Iraq government to come to terms with its internal political situation.

Re-commit to the real war on terror and this time get it done!

What does that mean? Get back to the two front war we were winning. The visible battle in Afghanistan and the international undercover battle directed at the funders and supporters of Muslim terrorists.

Pulling back from Iraq is not losing, it’s redeployment.

Brian, Mid Hudson N.Y. (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:18 PM)

Isn't Democracy great! There is no perfect way, or right answer when it comes to war. There is just war, and always will be war, and our president should do everything possible to protect US, our soil, from any war, even if that means starting one there. And nowhere in this article does McCain say anything about Iraq being a mistake...

T Crane L.A., Ca (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:35 PM)

"Baker, also well-known for heading up the Iraq Study Group, voiced his agreement with McCain's view of the situation in Iraq."
--And what does Hamilton say?

Nicholas: Minnesota (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:40 PM)

What is the difference between Saddam, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, they all want us dead? Regardless this matter should be left to someone with military experience. President Bush had to learn the hard way because of 9-11 and now you want to elect someone else without experience, that’s smart. McCain is not Bush, that’s just what the Democrats want you to think so they will win. I thought one reason we studied history was so we wouldn’t make the same mistakes and what I remembered, was we lost Vet Nam due to Politicians. Ute oh here we go again?

Have you forgotten, the United Nations thought Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction not just Bush, and because of that you saw other countries aiding in the attack, Al Qaeda aided Saddam. Remember all of this started after 9-11 and President Bush told us before hand, what he was going to do. In the end Saddam was judged by his own country.

I’m tired of the Bush Bashing, no one likes War, he knows what it has done to us, he’s trying hard to protect us, that includes you and all of you have turned your backs on him. It wouldn’t surprise me, if all the Bush hating in here, aren’t coming from Hanoi Jane lol (I know that’s as silly as War for Oil). Yes, Bush made some mistakes just like most other President have in the past and we forgave them, we all make mistakes (I can read it here on some of these comments), Bush deserves the same forgiveness after all that IS the Christian way. I think this is important so we can once again be united - hate is not good for anyone. If I wanted to play the game, I could come on here and tell you all the harm Bill Clinton has done while he was president, but I’m not going to, it’s in the past.

McCain is well liked and respected by many and I bet most of you McCain haters have done nothing to see what he’s like. Here I’ll help you, McCain.com

Lisa, Gilbert, Arizona (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:43 PM)

Our current president made the mistake of opening this can of worms before we had finished with Afghanistan. Well, now we broke it and fixing it is turning out to be a real pain in the ass. The problem with this debate is that there is more than just about how long are we going to leave American forces there in harms way. The better question is about how do we get the Iraqis to move their sorry butts and make peace and have a stable enough Iraq for us to move most of our troops home or into Afghanistan to kick some Taliban butt!

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:46 PM)

Obama supporters.

What did Barach mean in the debate when he said that he would always keep open the option of going back to Iraq if Al Qaeda returned after we leave. Is he suggesting that he isn't going to withdraw until Al qaeda is gone? That may be a long time...longer than a year or so.

campdog (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:49 PM)

Great, Now that Kerry is out of the picture[as a Democrat Vietnam vet],we can go back to ''civilian ''control unfettered by whether or not the fact remains that the one candidate in the present race who did serve,is a Republican. No ''chickenhawk''to be attached to the name of a man who was most highly decorated by his nation for his heroism.[and if not in captivity,then by the eyewitness accounts of hundreds of sailors who served upon the USS FORRESTAL]. Obama,of course,never spent a day in his life in the uniform of his nation. Should this matter? Absolutely not. FDR did not,neither did Wilson. Nor did Lincoln.[outside of a tiny militia stint]. Yet where does the ideal of ''just war''lay in the hands of a chief executive that has no military experience who may take over from one who is labeled a ''chickenhawk'',who yet would also send soldiers off to die in a foreign land?[and whose chief advisors,who will be key in this administration,also have no military backround either]. How the tune will change. The ''just war''principle would be elevated in order to fit the preconcieved biases of the chief executives supporters. Thus US soldiers killed in a Sudan, would find their deaths justified trying to end ethnic cleansing[whether this is accomplished or not].Afghanistan would suddenly find itself devoid of discussions of ''Taliban resurgence'' or ''drug lords''for the same reasons. Unending terrorism would be the ''price''as those in Europe and Asia are paying,as something we would ''have to live with''.[As Ariana Huffington,Noam Chomskey,DAILY KOS,and other leftists have advanced]. Unsaid in all of this,is that one candidate[McCain]may continue policies already deemed ''failed''. Yet the other[Obama/Clinton] can assuredly create an even worse condition based upon the lack of discernment and understanding of how dire this threat remains.[which to be fair,expanded through administrations Republican and Democrat].

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:49 PM)

Boy that sounds an awful lot like Mark McGwire in front of Congress a few years back.

'I'm not here to talk about the past...'

That didn't work out so well for that Big Mac, did it?

Jack, New York (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 3:51 PM)

McCain is still living in Vietnam emotionally. Two wrongs do not make a right. It was wrong to go and it is wrong to stay in Iraq. Somebody get us out!

JWE (Sent Thursday, February 28, 2008 4:02 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=713003